Federal Territories in the Territorial Structure of Russia: Issues of Constitutional Institutionalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the place of federal territories in the territorial structure of Russia. The author, analyzing the history of the emergence of federal territories in the Constitution of Russia, and conducting a comparative analysis with the creation of federal territories in leading foreign federations, comes to the conclusion that the goals of creating FT «Sirius» do not correspond to world practice. Such goals, as a rule, are the establishment of governance features in connection with the need to take into account the culture of the natives (Canada), the difficulties of managing remote islands in order to preserve their ecology (Australia, Venezuela), historical features of the annexation of territories and geostrategic goals in relation to island territories (USA, Malaysia, Brazil), and colonial features of the territories (India). The article notes that there is no expressed need to create federal territories in Russia, and the transformation of the Sirius educational center into a federal territory is in no way connected with solving important state tasks. Despite this, the author believes that it is possible to form federal territories in Russia after revising the Constitution and supplementing Article 5 and Article 67 with the corresponding amendments and adopting a general (framework) federal law on the status of federal territories, taking into account the will of residents and the consent of the authorities of the subject where the creation of a federal territory is proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".